tv Book Party for Privacy in the Age of Big Data CSPAN August 21, 2014 3:35am-4:01am EDT
the possibilities we see a trend, we see the projections. it's not epidemic. however it could be stalled, it could be derailed. there are so many that would not like to see the democratization of the economy. let me also say the capital system isn't going to disappear. you know i taught the advanced management program at the wharton school for a long time and i'm a believer in the market that the market will play a streamlined role. it will become more aggregated. it will be a partner of this but it won't be the primary partner within a collaborative commons. but there are a lot of interests of foot. you mentioned the u.s.. people ask me me why zizo behind this third industrial revolution and the shift to the zero margin shifts society. while the big energy companies and other special interest can help finance the elections. they provide the money to the
candidates. in europe we have public financing of elections so while the companies at the in brussels they can't write the legislation because they have to divide with other groups. the region's national governments and ngos etc. so until we have dealt that though this whole question of companies buying electricity in the u.s. the u.s. is going to continue to fall further behind. may come up with new ideas but if you are in an old energy system and an old centralized economy based on a vertically integrated companies as possible the u.s. and canada will be second-tier countries 20 or 30 years from now. in europe we are wrestling with these issues on power. we told the power utility companies they have to uncouple. they camped on the distribution because it has to act like an internet allowing everybody equal access. in europe we are now having a huge discussion about data security and protecting people's privacy. we all want this internet of things that we created more collaborative world but we want to make sure data isn't used by
third parties against our interests so we are beginning to develop detailed protocols to make sure that privacy is secure. that's not happening here. >> host: so there are two previous predictions that i would like to ask you about. one from the 1950s and one from the 1960s. in the 1950s this country and many other countries around the world invested a tremendous amount of money and nuclear energy. the idea being in the rhetoric at the time sounds very familiar to what you are outlining in the idea being by the year 2000 electricity would be effectively free, marginally free. we would sink millions or billions of dollars into these plans. we would solve the technological problems along the way and solve the political problems because we had a few decades to do that but ultimately energy would be able to flow into peoples houses throughout the world including the developing world and a marginal cost of zero. the second one is the green revolution of the 1960s. this one we actually found
through biotechnology of various sorts and new ways of cultivating that the price of corn and wheat and soybeans actually has dropped to something close to zero, propped up by massive government subsidies in creating tremendous dislocation of farmers so people flooding northward from mexico because it takes a lot less labor on a farm in mexico to make a bushel of corn. so how do you look at those two examples and say we are not about to invite the same deferred dreams? >> guest: in terms of nuclear power they said it would be power too cheap to meter but we now know renewable energy is near zero marginal cost. in other words we now know in europe there are millions and millions of players, homeowners consumer cooperatives rural electricity cooperative small businesses and large businesses that are producing green
electricity at near zero marginal cost. they are already there so that issues off the table. we knew it was delivered to millions and billions of people right now. near zero marginal cost of electricity. the food issue is interesting you might know that i fought monsanto and the life science companies around intellectual property controlling seeds. we now have a generation of genetically modified seeds in the actual seeds are patented so they are controlled and owned by a handful of large life science companies and we have no record to show the yields have been dramatically increase. on the contrary we have every evidence of small farmers now have available other types of seeds and they can afford to lease out the seeds that are owned as intellectual property by the life science companies. there is an example where an agriculture we have to turn it around. we need to move toward more
organic and ecologically sustained agriculture land reform and allow people to begin to shift their food production from fertilizers and pesticides to more organic treatment. it's a big jump. in europe we are doing it and in parts of asia they are moving towards a more agriculturally sustainable system. we are not doing it in the u.s. in any major way. >> host: one of the sections of this book makes a small concession to the idea of near zero marginal cost. i was struck by it because when i think about my internet use i never believe that what i use is free. i've pay, hundreds of dollars per month and i've pay at&t hundreds of dollars per month and i pay any number of other companies for the devices in the software to interact with this flow of data. nothing about the internet is free. now some of those are subject to cause that every month i write a check to comcast.
>> guest: as you know over time i mention in the book i say near zero. i spent a lot of the early sections of the "the zero marginal cost society" the book on the causes us to pay, internet communication, the energy cost the access cost the infrastructure cost but what i'm saying is we are heading towards near zero marginal cost. we already know in certain areas we have done that. what is the cost to you and i to put an idea up on the internet and make it available to 40% of the human race. not much. service provider and cell phone fixed costs and that's about it. assessing the book we will head toward more near zero marginal cost. what has happened now is the reason prices are still high on these vertically integrated corporations there are so many middlemen in the process they keep marking up the transaction cost and by the time he gets to the final end user we are paying more than we should more than the production and distribution
of product would warrant. that's why zero marginal cost is the ultimate test of the decent sustainable just society. if people want a metric to measure how you created just and sustainable world is how you head towards near zero marginal cost and not gdp. that allows us to share goods and services at the cost of production which should head toward zero. people have also said to me if you have abundance will that create even more use of resources and the worse for the planet? probably not. the reason we have so much overconsumption and overindulgence is because of fear and scarcity. market capitalism is based on scarcity so we all have to get hours and make sure the other doesn't get theirs, mine versus pine and we are always in the struggle toward against a rainy day because tomorrow may bring bad news. in a society where most people's basic energy, basic goods and
services are provided, not all of them but the basic goods and services there will be less fear of scarcity, less need to hoard of things available in a sustainable way and they do have some control over the process. also the status differentiations in a world where many things are free there's not much that is left between having the haves and the have-nots because everything is readily available. i suspect it changes the psyche from scarcity which creates the idea of overconsumption to a sustainable abundance which gives us the idea that we have what we need and we don't need to do more than that. >> host: one area that is consistently a release in the near future up to scarcity is real estate. if you look at silicon valley where many of these ideas flow freely and you look at san francisco where many examples flow freely there is a massive civil war breaking out over the high cost of the basic apartment in the area.
so in that situation you have rich people getting richer on the information economy, rich people getting richer, educated people getting richer on the various elements that would feed into the zero marginal cost society and then the people who work in the delis and the liquor stores and at the hotels are unable to rent a decent place anywhere near their work. police officers, firefighters and teachers as well. so at that point there are certain things that cannot be zero marginal cost. how do we deal with that? >> guest: we always assume there's no way to move an economy unless there's a profit incentive. without a profit incentive how can you move the economy therefore the collaborative economy doesn't make sense. how would people produce and share things for free? wake-up call. billions of people are doing it today. it's called cooperatives. we don't tend to recognize this
in the u.s. but literally billions of people are involved in food cooperatives, electricity cooperatives banking cooperatives housing cooperatives, all sorts of cooperatives that are not based on a profit motive. they pool their n. shared resources on the commons. this cooperative is a comment and there's no direct profit. for example in the united states when you go to the grocery store a lot of the food you get is coming from agricultural cooperatives and invest part of u.s. electricity comes from rural electricity cooperatives. they provide 70% of electricity. it's not a profit-based system. it's wildly successful. in new york we have housing cooperatives. in europe and asia and around the world more people bank in banking co-ops and commercial banks and their big players. they're not small players. again we are so blinded to the idea there's only the capitalist market that we don't see around us is other reality cooperatives and nonprofit organizations that are common to let me say one
last thing. economists will say the social commons is a parasite. it relies on government grants and entitlements and private philanthropy in order to sustain itself. wrong. a study was done at 40 countries by johns hopkins university civil society centered and what they found is over half the revenue not-for-profit organizations is fees for services rendered. only 3435% comes from government which is less than government gives the industry and only 12% as philanthropy. we have wit with the collaborat, and that's now going to move from the shadows to center stage because the internet of things will allow millions of people to bypass the capitalist market and become consumers and produce and share their own goods and services and eliminate the middleman and directly engage with each other and they will create institutions that are by far and away beyond the
traditional capitalist profit-making institutions there are going to be two systems, capitalist market in the collaborative commons. i suspect the collaborative commons will probably be the dominant economic engine in the capitalist market will still be a strong player but a niche partner. >> host: have cooperatives helped firefighters pay their rent in new york? >> guest: cooperatives have helped out. that's a good thing about cooperatives because they can fix, the cooperatives determine what they are going to be doing with their members. they can fix bills to some extent but i'm not saying the whole world is going to move toward a zero marginal cost society. i'm saying that large parts of the human race are starting to move some of the economic activity onto the internet of things onto the collaborative commons. if nothing else this is the best news in my lifetime. i never thought of my lifetime we would see the emergence of a new economic system, collaborative commons.
so different from the traditional capitalist systems we now have. how we develop it all the challenges involved as we move toward it are quite interesting and there are going to be difficult for sure but the fact that we actually have a new possibility, new economic journey ahead of us a new economic system to look forward to is quite encouraging. getting there is going to be a real test of our will. the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer and climate change is spoiling our planet is not a viable alternative so let's move this journey to a zero marginal cost society and move to collaborative commons and create a more just and sustainable society for our kids. >> host: jeremy rifkin author of "the zero marginal cost society" thank you very much for this conversation. >> guest: thank you.
now i'm booktv theresa payton and theodore claypoole talk about the positive and negatives of digital surveillance and discuss what individuals can do to protect their privacy and the privacy of their children. during a book party held at the capitol hill club in washington d.c.. >> are you guys ready? everybody has a glass of wine so you can settle in. perfect, excellent. good evening. i am melissa hathaway and it's my great honor to be here this evening to introduce the authors "privacy in the age of big dat data." who would have thought that when the internet began with his first transmission on october 29, 1969 and be moved forward here today in may of 2014 that each one of us would have at least three to five i.t. enabled devices on us moving toward 10 to 15 in the next few
years. we are at the intersection of the internet of things, security and privacy in the 21st century and these authors have identified what it means to be tracked from our home, through the internet, in our cars and as we move forward. i am so excited to introduce theresa payton and ted claypoole who are going to give us some of the background of the book, some of the case studies and to make us think twice about when one may click connect, search and connect to that internet. what does it mean for our security, our privacy and the age of the internet of things so to reset please. you. >> thank you. [applause] first of all thanks so much everybody for being here because you are either a friend of ted's or a friend of mine or a colleague or a business partner of some sorts of thank you for giving up time and a evening to be here.
even though we made sure we advertise free food and free booze. that having been said you are busy people. let me talk to a little bit about why ted and i wanted to do this book. it's interesting to remember a time before edward snowden which was june, a year ago. remember that time. ted and i were talking about doing our second book, the first but protecting your internet activity and are you on line? the truth is yes. that is for after the show. we go to the publisher and we say we have this great idea in the something we are very concerned about. we want to talk about privacy in the age of the data and its crickets on the other end of the phone at the publisher. the publisher is sweet and we love them. it's her second book with them and they are here with us tonight selling the book. they said i don't think consumers care about that at all. we are going to have a hard time
selling this book. why do you think they're going to care about the book. >> we said we would love to have the tube you think about this but what about something else? >> not this. here are the things we are concerned about site talks through a couple of things and they reluctantly agreed to let us write the book. so we are coming up on our first deadline where everything has to be done and turned in an and the first deadline the boston marathon bombing happens. if you remember there were a lot of crowdsourcing going on in the data to try to figure out who did what and how to apprehend the culprits. they pulled the book back to talk about how big data didn't stop something from happening but it sure helps with the case. we are now wrapping it out and then mr. snowden's revelations come out at of me go back to the publisher and we say we need to pull the book back again. they said don't you think this
is a passing headline? do you really want to delay the book for snowden? i said i think this is going to be big. trust us on this if we release a book and snowden is not in that people will not read it. long story short i was a little bit of the cycle on writing a book that the reason i'm so excited we got the chance to do the project is from a technical perspective i was at the beginning of creating the big data and analytics that the banks know about you. according to the vendor they are trying to make you feel good but according to them one of the largest first comprehensive on line data analytics platform and this was that barnett bank which is part of bank of america and one of the biggest implementations at that time. i was part of doing that and my focus was to help the bank make money and to make sure we can get a larger share of your wallet. and take care of you of course. that was number one. i left the best for last.
it's all about the customer. i have to tell you i did not think once about somebody hacking and stealing that data and knowing everything about you. that doesn't mean i didn't care about security at that point but it was on the mainframe. we had the client/server implementation and i just didn't have to think and worry that much because we had mainframe security. fast-forward, i'm thinking about the data being collected by us and a lot of times we get focused on the government and the government scratches the surface. it's business and they need to do it so they can make money so they can offer you valued products so they can get the next cure for disease, so they can patent the heart to fix that my daughter got a couple of years ago. we need big data and we need all this information but is woefully under protected. when i talked to ted about this book my focus was how do i write a guide for consumers and
businesses with ted's brilliant legal mind to help me understand navigating where the laws lead often where the laws help and how do i write a guide for you whether yo you are a business owner, business executive or a consumer that you can read, be informed, engaged and may be enraged and if you are not enraged at some point in the book i didn't do my job on the pieces. ted did his job. also you can do something about it because you read the headlines and people get paralysis. i wanted to take that paralysis away and i wanted you to feel like you had control. then there are couple of parts where you can't do anything about it except to talk to your elected officials. we also encourage that in the book as well. that is why i am so excited the project actually happened, that you were here and i hope you enjoyed reading the book. ted and i love to talk to people as they are reading the book and i will turn it over to ted for his remarks on the project. >> ultimately i think one of the things we said what we were
doing this was we are going to be positive. neither of us are luddites and none of us think we should get rid of technology. in fact part of every chapter was supposed to be here is why this technology is good, here's where it works for you and here's why it's important to you in here is why people set it up this way. in some cases they set up that way for reasons we may not necessarily like that we explore the good enough batted it. but then hopefully you became enraged in certain places where you say i understand this is good but it doesn't have to be this way. that is ultimately where we are right now is that there is a lot going on right now and more and more is happening is the internet of things becomes real. as you have not just a computer in your pocket, but a computer that is your jacket and those exist right now and we talk about them in the book.
but more and more stationary cameras around in the sensors everywhere and the thing you carry with you will be sending information out about you. so we as people need to make decisions about how much we care about that and how much we are willing to give out and how much we can ask our legislators to say we need to know more here or we need to have some restrictions there. there was a question of not necessarily have to do something but if you think about it and you were worried here are some steps you can take so that was where we were. and we are happy to take any questions and by the way she has allowed her mic and that is why i am standing behind here. >> the other thing too if you are in a hurry and you don't have time to read the book and you keep putting it off because you are doing other things you can flip through it and we actually have free tools, tips,
case studies that we have highlighted a sort of a callout text box. if you don't have time to read the book cover to cover you can flip through and find some of those tips and tools highlighted in the boxes. the stories are interesting. a lot of the stories we did actually interviewed the victims so we actually talked to victims and put the results of the interview with their permission in the book. we also interviewed mr. madeley who developed the showdown tool. the risks of the internet of things we now have refrigerators that talk to the internet to help you with your grocery ord order. for those of you who are german phobic you can flush your toilet using bluetooth from your phone. so this internet of things understands those chips that make it affordable for you to have it in your house and make it really simple to use our woefully unprotected.
it has data about you and your patterns. flashing patterns, food patterns, other patterns. then there's also the cameras as well. >> but yes it is a brave new world now and it's just going to get more and more extreme in that area. the one thing you said that i wanted to point out that our publisher stopped as a one point and said i'm not sure why you were using all these cases that have been in a lawsuit at one point or another. that actually was fairly easy because something that people have to know about us is that we are professional secret keepers. this is what we do for a living and so if anybody is looking to read what theresa is saying about dishing dirt at the white house, not going to happen.
and the same thing with me and my clients a number of whom are creating the internet of things end up in the banking space or others. we don't talk about that but one of the reasons we talk about law cases is because it's protected. there is a lot out there that eventually reach the point where someone has been upset enough to sue about it so there is a lot we cover in there because we can do that and nobody can say we are taking their information. >> you talk about lawsuits and stuff like that and it brings up an idea to me about a whole new area of law and how is that emerging? >> we feel like we need more lawyers? i am kidding.